THE  JAPANESE  PLAN  OE  U^NION 


Between  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists. 


[Read  before  the  Chicago  Ministers’  Meeting,  Sept.  24,  1888.] 
By  rev.  H.  E.  HAMMOND. 

Published  by  Request. 


There  are  the  same  reasons  for  Christian  union  in 
Japan  as  in  this  country,  no  more  and  no  less  that  I know 
of.  Here,  with  all  the  evils  of  denominationalism  which 
we  all  deplore,  no  practicable  plan  for  an  organic  union 
has  ever  been  devised. 

It  has  come  to  be  considered  a dream  that  never  has 
been  realized  and  never  will  be.  It  is  a serious  question 
whether  it  is  even  desirable;  whether  a fraternal  spirit 
and  cordial  Christian  codperation  which  concedes  the 
right  of  pre-occupancy  is  not  the  best  that  can  be  hoped 
for  among  the  denominations. 

The  Plan  before  us  is  a proposed  organic  union  be- 
tween Congregationalists  and  various  branches  of  Pres- 
bvterians.  These  branches  are  virtually  one,  and  so  the 
union  is  really  of  only  two  denominations  in  Japan,  and 
yet  it  is  proposed  to  call  it,  “The  Church  of  Christ  in 
Japan.”  This  name  partakes  of  an  arrogance  which  we 
have  not  been  slow  to  condemn  in  others.  It  must  at  once 
excite  hostility  in  all  other  denominations. 

And  if  this  plan  should  be  adopted  how  much  would 
be  effected  ? 

How  would  Christianity  then  be  presented  to  the 
Japanese? 

1.  The  Roman  Catholics  will  still  claim  to  be  the  only 
true  church. 

2.  The  Episcopalians  will  still  claim  to  be  church 
and  call  all  others  “ sects.” 


2 


3-  The  Baptists  will  still  assert  that  immersion  is 
th^  only  door  to  the  Christian  church, 

4.  The  Methodists  will  come  forward  with  their 
newly  ajrpointed  Missionary  Bishops,  and  then  will  come, 

5.  “The  church  of  Christ  in  Japan,”  and  what  in 
reality  will  be  accomplished? 

Why  not  cultivate  brotherly  love,  and  treat  one  an- 
other with  Christian  courtesy,  and  trust  that  the  Japanese 
will  have  sense  enough  to  allow  for  difference  of  views 
among  honest  men? 

2.  The  Doctrinal  basis  of  the  proposed  “Church  of 
Japan,”  is  ohjectionahle.  It  presents  for  adoption 

(1)  The  fictitious  “Apostles’  Creed,”  which  the 
Apostles  never  saw,  which  is  scarcely  a creed  at  all; 
which  is  more  remarkable  for  its  omissions  of  the  doc- 
trines of  Christianity  than  for  their  statement;  which  is 
the  production  of  uninspired  and  unknown  men  in  a crude 
age,  after  inspiration  had  ceased  and  before  theology  had 
become  a science.  I have  not  time  to  present  this  in  full 
now;  allow  me  to  refer  jmu  to  the  Advance  of  Feb.  24, 
1887,  for  a longer  treatment  of  the  subject,  which  has  never 
to  my  knowledge  been  refuted,  and  I see  not  how  it  can  be, 

(2)  The  basis  presents  also  the  Nicene  Creed  for 
adoption,  which  zealously  sought  to  supply  the  omissions 
of  the  Apostles’  Creed,  which  intended  to  add  the  divinity 
of  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Trinity,  the  Atone- 
ment, some  allusions  to  the  Scriptures,  the  perpetuity  of 
Christ’s  kingdom,  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets,  the 
agency  of  the  Son  in  creation,  baptism  and  worship; 
hut  which  still  omits  the  Lord’s  Supper,  the  Rule  of 
Faith,  the  general  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  the  Fall 
of  Man,  need  of  Regeneration,  Moral  Agency,  conditions 
of  Salvation,  Repentance,  Faith,  and  holy  living,  the  work 
of  the  Spirit  in  and  for  men,  the  Perseverance  of  the 
Saints,  and  Future  Retribution. 

Worse  than  these  omissions  are  its  strange  statements 
about  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Son  “begotten” 
before  all  worlds,  as  though  antedating  the  worlds,  would 
escape  the  idea  of  a derived  being  inferior  to  the  Father! 
I think  it  was  Moses  Stuart  who  pronounced  eternal  gen- 


3 


eration,  “eternal  nonsense,”  and  if  any  living  man  can 
tell  me  the  meanine  of  those  other  phrases,  “ God  of 
God,  Light  of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God,  begotten, 
not  made,”  and  harmonize  them  with  the  eternity  of  the 
Second  Person,  and  His  equality  with  the  Father,  I s;  all 
be  happy  to  listen  and  learn.  If  these  phrases  referred 
to  His  incarnation,  they  might  convey  some  idea;  but  of 
course  they  do  not,  for  that  is  treated  of  separately. 

So,  with  the  Spirit;  Scriptural  teachings  of  His  be- 
ing sent  by  the  Father  on  His  ministries  to  men,  are 
misinterpreted  as  meaning  a metaphysical  or  ontological 
“ procession  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.”  Why  should 
such  puzzling  statements  be  imposed  on  the  Japanese 
convert?  The  omission  of  both  these  defective  and  ob- 
solete creeds,  and  the  retention  of  that  of  the  Evangelical 
Alliance,  which  it  also  presents  for  adoption,  would  be  a 
great  improvement.  As  that  already  has  the  assent  of 
many  denominations,  it  would  answer  such  a purpose  tol- 
erably well. 

3.  As  to  the  Polity. 

This  plan  destroys  the  autonomy  of  the  local  church. 
I know  the  contrary  has  been  asserted,  but  I cannot  see  it. 

(1)  To  begin  with,  the  autonomy  of  the  local 
church  implies  its  right  to  state  its  faith  in  its  own  lan- 
guage. This  constitution  imposes  on  it  a creed  from 
without,  which  it  does  not  allow  them  even  to  “ accept 
for  substance  of  doctrine.” 

(2)  The  churches  are  expected  to  delegate  “cer- 
tain specified  powers  to  Bukwai,  Renkwai  and  Sokwai,” 
three  outside  and  higher  bodies,  and  can  themselves  exer- 
cise such  only  as  they  have  not  delegated.  “A  church  may, 
therefore,  adopt  such  a form  of  internal  organization  as  it 
shall  deem  advisable.  In  any  case,  however,  provision 
shall  be  made  for  the  representation  of  the  church  in 
Bukwai  and  Renkwai.”  (Chapter  5,  page  7.) 

( 3 ) Believers  are  not  allowed  to  organize  themselves 
into  a church,  but  must  apply  to  a Bukwai,  who  shall  or- 
ganize one  if  they  think  expedient  (p.  15). 

(4)  When  a church  desires  to  call  a bishop,  it  is  ex- 
pected to  invite  a bishop  of  Bukwai  to  be  its  chairman 


4 


(p.  69),  in  words  with  which  we  are  familiar,  “to  moder- 
ate a call.” 

(5)  The  church  is  not  allowed  to  discipline  all  its 
own  members.  Its  bishop  or  other  ministers  may  become 
members  of  the  church,  but  are  not  amenable  to  its  disci- 
pline. Chap.  9,  Sec.  ii.  “Bishops,  whether  members 
of  churches  or  not,  are  subject  to  the  discipline  of  the  Buk- 
wai  to  which  the}"  belong.”  jd.  23.  The  Bukwai  alone 
can  discipline  them.  They  are  thus  a privileged  order — 
above  common  members  in  violation  of  the  Savior’s  law 
(Matt.  23;  8)  “One  is  your  Master,  even  Christ,  and  all 
ye  are  breihren.”  On  this  Plan  the  chuich  can  have  the 
honor  of  the  membership  of  these  ministers  when  it  is  an 
honor,  but  cannot  rid  itself  of  the  dishonor  when  it  is  a 
dishonor,  j^rovided  the  unworthy  bishop  has  influence 
enough  among  his  fellow  bishops  in  the  Bukwai  to  secure 
a majority  of  their  votes.  Then  the  churcn  is  helpless 
under  the  power  of  an  oligarchy. 

And  further,  the  disciplinable  offences  of  these  aris- 
tocratic members  of  the  church  are  differently  defined 
from  those  of  the  common  class.  “ In  the  case  of  a bishop 
an  offence  is  something  clearly  forbidden  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, or  contrary  to  the  Constitution  of  the  church  of 
Christ  in  Japan ; in  the  case  of  any  other,  an  offence  is 
something  clearly  forbidden  in  the  ScriptQres  or  contrary 
to  the  rules  of  the  church  of  which  he  is  a member.”  So 
it  would  seem  that  this  higher  class  church  member  might 
violate  the  rules  of  the  church  and  not  commit  a disci- 
plinable offence.  No  church  with  any  degree  of  self-re- 
spect woukl  admit  any  such  members. 

(6)  Any  one  or  more  members  dissatisfied  with  the 
decision  of  a church  may  appeal  to  Bukwai,  which  may 
decide  it  finally,  or  may  refer  it  to  a committee  of  Renkwai, 
whose  decision  shall  be  final;  or  Renkwai  may  refer  it  to 
the  committee^of  Sokwai,  whose  decision  shall  be  “ final.” 
Nowhere  is  the  finding  merely  “ advisory,”  as  church 
autonomy  requires. 

These  provisions  of  the  Plan  demonstrate  that  the 
self-government  of  the  local  church  is  not  respected. 


5 


They  demonstrate  further  that  what  has  been  some- 
times called  the  nuisance  of  Appeals  from  one  judicatory 
up  to  another  in  the  Presbyterian  church  of  this  country, 
is  not  avoided  in  this  Plan.  See  also  Chap.  lo,  Sec.  i. 
“ Appeals  originating  in  a church  are  decided  by  the  Buk- 
wai,”  “ those  originating  in  a Bukwai  are  decided  by  the 
Renkwai,”  “those  originating  in  a Renkwai  are  decided  by 
the  Sokwai.” 

These  provisions  demonstrate  further  that  the  fellow- 
ship of  these  churches  is  not  fellowship,  but  subjection  to 
these  bodies  in  regular  grade  above  them;  viz.\  Bukwai, 
Renkwai  and  Sokwai;  alias  Presbytery,  Synod  and  Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

Now  after  thus  taking  away  both  the  autonomy  and 
the  fellowship  of  our  churches,  is  it  not  a little  cool  to  say 
(see  Advance  of  August  23)  “It  is  of  course  possible 
that  in  twenty  years  all  these  churches  may  have  govern- 
ment by  elders,  but  also  that  the  present  sessions  may  all 
be  reduced  to  standing  committees,  and  in  either  case  the 
churches  will  only  be  using  their  freedom”?  (Mr.  Learn- 
ed’s letter  indorsed  by  Secretary  Clark.) 

It  betrays  great  want  of  discernment  to  speak  of  these 
alternatives  as  equallv  probable;  and  to  leave  Congrega- 
tionalisiUL  at  such  disadvantage,  and  then  throw  over  upon 
the  freedom  of  their  will  all  possible  consequences,  was 
scarcely  to  be  expected  from  a Congregational  leader  in 
the  negotiation. 

See  also  how  skillfully  this  Plan  is  devised  to  secure 
the  perpetual  loyalty  of  the  mi.dsters; 

Their  ministerial  standing  depends  on  membership  in 
Bukwai.  Anything  “ contrary  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
church  of  Christ  in  Japan,”  is  a disciplinable  offence  in  a 
minister.  Now  a minister  might  become  convinced  that  this 
Constitution  is  unscriptural  and  wrong,  and  might 
desire  to  start  a genuine  Congregational  church.  But  if 
he  should  attempt  it  he  would  commit  a disciplinable  of- 
fence, and  would  need  the  spirit  of  the  old  anti-slavery 
martyrs  to  dare  it. 

The  Plan  also  similarly  fetters  deacons  of  the  Con- 
gregational churches.  At  their  election  “ they  shall  sig- 


6 


nify  their  acceptance  of  the  Constitution  of  the  church  of 
Japan,”  p.  53. 

Nor  the  deacons  only;  when  a representative  is  chosen 
toBukwai,  he  is  made  to  swear  allegiance  to  this  church  of 
Christ  in  Japan  before  he  can  represent  his  church  in 
Bukwai,  p.  36,  4. 

Was  ever  Plan  more  shrewdly  devised  to  perpetuate 
its  own  power? 

This  is  worse  than  the  Old  Plan  of  Union  in  1801. 
That  never  required  a delegate  from  a Congregational 
church  to  swear  fealty  to  the  Plan  of  Union. 

Another  queer  thing  in  this  plan  — the  majority  rule 
is  discarded  in  Bukwai  and  Renkwai;  on  an  appeal  from 
a church  one-third  of  Bukwai  can  refuse  to  try  it  and  pass 
it  on  to  a committee  of  Renkwai.  And  so  one-third  of 
the  voters  of  Renkwai  can  refuse  to  consider  a case,  and 
pass  it  over  to  a committee  of  Sokwai. 

Where  did  this  government  by  minorities  come  from? 
Presbyterianism  or  Buddhism,  or  what? 

The  savor  and  atmosphere  of  this  Plan  are  almost  en- 
tirely Presbyterian.  It  starts  with  saying,  “The  New 
Testament  enjoins  no  one  particular  form  of  church  gov- 
ernment ” (p.  7),  a statement  which  certainly  is  modified 
by  the  eighteenth  and  twenty-third  of  Matthew,  by  the 
Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  and  by  primitive  examples. 

Then  as  we  go  on  through  the  pamphlet  we  have 
nearly  all  the  details  of  Presbyterianism  translated  into 
Japanese.  We  have  the  one  “church”  of  Japan  instead  of 
“the  churches.”  We  have  Presbytery,  Synod  and  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  under  the  names  Bukwai,  Renkwai  and 
Sokwai.  We  have,  as  already  said,  the  System  of  Appeals. 
We  have  “final  decisions”  for  the  churches  rather  than 
“advice”  to  them.  And  worse  still,  decisions  by  commit- 
tees which  the  churches  have  no  voice  in  electing,  pp.  21, 
22.  We  have  control  of  the  lower  bodies  by  the  higher. 
“Renkwai  shall  examine  records  of  Bukwai,”  p.  19,  3. 
“Sokwai  shall  uphold  truth  and  righteousness  throughout 
the  Renkwai,  the  Bukwai  and  the  Churches,”  p.  21.  How 
much  might  this  be  made  to  cover  in  an  emergency! 


7 


Renkwai  may  establish  Boards  of  Home  Missions,  es- 
tablish or  assume  connection  with  Christian  Schools,  Col- 
leges, and  Theological  Seminaries.”  pp.  i8  and  19.  “Sok- 
wai  may  establish  a Board  of  Foreign  Missions.”  p.  21,  i. 

In  short,  if  there  is  one  element  or  principle  of  Pres- 
byterianism which  is  not  incorporated  in  this  Plan,  I have 
overlooked  it;  and  if  there  is  one  element  or  principle  of 
Congregationalism  that  is  fairly  and  consistently^  preserved 
in  this  Plan,  I have  failed  to  find  it. 

There  needs  no  prophet  to  tell  the  result  of  its  adop- 
tion. There  needs  no  reasoning  from  history,  no  experi- 
mental trial  even.  It  is  already  full-fledged  Presbyterian- 
ism. 

It  is  scarcely  credible  that  this  Plan  should  have  origi- 
nated with  the  Japanese  themselves,  without  suggestion 
from  extraneous  sources.  There  is  too  much  adroitness 
in  it  to  have  sprung  from  unsophisticated  young  converts. 

If  we  have  any  regard  for  Congregationalism  in  our 
missions,  we  should  call  a halt,  should  ask  a iDostponement 
of  final  action  for  at  least  one  year,  to  give  time  for  a little 
discussion,  before  we  consent  to  turn  over  to  the  Presby- 
terians all  the  Congregational  churches  of  Japan.  Nay,  if 
we  have  any  regard  for  true  Christian  unity  in  Japan,  we 
should  protest  against  this  Plan.  Some  of  the  Japanese 
will  certainly  learn  that  It  is  oppressive,  and  will  demand  a 
free  church.  Then  there  will  be  conflict  and  greater 
disunion. 

And  doubtless  some  rigid  Presbyterians  will  complain 
of  any  afilliation  with  Congregational  churches,  and  will  se- 
cede, and  so  the  result  will  be  three  denominations  instead 
of  two.  These  results  would  be  simply  history  repeating 
itself. 


W.  T.  P.  A.  PRINT,  161  LA  SALLE  STREET,  CHICAGO. 


